Sunday, January 8, 2017

Technology communication and unintended consequences

In democratic societies, it is considered an obligation of
researchers and politicians to inform the public about modern technologies and
their potential risks. Researchers of KIT and the University of Wollongong,
Australia, recently found that information about technologies and their risks
may have undesired side effects.

It may also cause worries where they do not seem appropriate, as
is reported in the international Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health.

"Today, technical innovations dominate our everyday life in
many areas. New technologies, however, always are associated with risks -- and
these are also seen by laymen," says Christoph Böhmert, first author of
the recently published study and researcher of the Science Communication Group
of KIT's Institute for German Studies.

"It is crucial to enable adequate communication between
science and society, which does not only consider scientific findings, but also
concerns of the population." The study clearly showed that communication
of risks may be complicated sometimes. Information on efficient precautions was
found to lead to an increased risk perception by the recipients of the
information.

In their study, the researchers analyzed communication about a
technology that has become indispensable in our life -- mobile communications
and the electromagnetic fields on which it is based.

All over the world, radiation protection authorities, such as
the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, communicate the current
state of research into risks of electromagnetic fields as follows: Investigations made and all findings
obtained so far do not allow anyconclusions
to be drawn with respect to mobile communications being a risk for human health.

But, the experts continue, there still are knowledge gaps as
regards long-term impacts. Then, measures are recommended to reduce exposure of
the individual to electromagnetic fields.

The Federal Office for Radiation Protection, for instance,
recommends to keep telephone conversation short, to buy a mobile phone with a
low radiation value, or to use a headset to prevent the mobile phone from being
in direct contact with the head.

It had been known from previous studies already that information
on precautions may increase worries. It had been suspected that people conclude
from the recommendation of precautions that there really is a risk. This effect
was not confirmed by the recent study. The scientists rather attributed the
increased worries to a lack of knowledge about the propagation of
electromagnetic fields.

Within the framework of the study, the recommended precautions
were submitted to 1717 Australians, together with one of six information
brochures providing scientific background information.

When test persons were given not only the recommendations, but
also explained why observation of these tips strongly reduces their exposure to
electromagnetic fields, worries increased.

For example, scientists explained to the test persons that
telephone conversations with a headset largely reduce exposure. When a mobile
phone is located ten centimeters instead of just one centimeter away from the
ear, the electric power absorbed by the ear is about one hundredth of the
initial value.

Hence, the own mobile phone usually causes an exposure that by
far exceeds that of mobile communications stations that are generally referred
to as "cellphone towers."

While the scientists wanted to explain the effectiveness of
precautions, test persons mainly considered this information to be an
indication of their mobile phone -- not the transmission towers -- being
dangerous. As a result, they perceived increased risk potentials for telephone
conversations with their mobile phones.

"The study reveals that messages on precautions and
information are a double-edged sword in terms of subjective risk perception.
Their use should be far better understood," Boehmert says.

Thought for the day

Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!

Individual One’s tweet at 4:52 AM - 17 Feb 2019 after a long, hard day of playing golf at Mar-A-Lago on Day Two of our “national emergency.”

Information and Feedback

If you were looking for the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee website and ended up here, try this.